I am interested in the thoughts of everyone about multiple positives and/or repeat infractions for medium to large stables.

I notice a lot of threads that "sterotype" and bash a Trainer by what they read on the USTA Rulings. The true Responsibility of a Trainer gets spread across the number of horses in their name. This includes overall wellness, racing form, shoes, feeding, classification, racing itself, rest/turnouts, shipping and not to mention managing any "owners". We've bantered around how much work goes into just a few conditioning/training issues on here ... but what if you have 20, 40 head. It is nuts.

Personally, I think the number of horses a Trainer is responsible for (as well as other factors) comes into play when judging their integrity. Your thoughts?

When you put your horse in a large stable it is like name dropping. The horses would be hard pressed to see the #1 trainer, but you get to tell someone you have your horse in so and so stable. I grew up in this business and have heard so many times, I have found this great stuff, take 2 seconds off your horse. Then they get a positive and low and behold they cry foul, set up and they never use anything. Trainer responsibilty you bet. If you don't know whats going on in your stable, maybe you should.

If a stable has a sustained mark of positive tests year after year their can be little doubt....but that being said, many more owners would rather win a lot and take the chance than not win and say my guy is honest. BELIEVE ME.

Good discussion and great points. I was dangling the idea that multiple postivies in big stables get forgiveness because of the shear workload, complexity and confusion of training and racing a lot of stock .... you folks are brining up the real issues. The motivations of owners and why they pick/choose certain stables. Nice posts.

Mel, agree with you and would like to add owners that like to win at the Window are the worst!

Nice to have you on board Casandra. There are plenty of big stables out there that haven't a lot of positive tests. Managing a stable is like any other enterprise. There are Mom and Pop stores and there is Walmart. If you have the talent to juggle lots of balls and get the best out of your help, a large stable can work just fine, guys like me are overwhelmed with more than three horses.

To your point there sam, it comes down to the people doing the work. If you have good people who arent over extended, usually little goes wrong. if you have a bunch of dimwits and your paying them half rate and expect the world, there's a good shot something WILL go wrong, which is why the best people usually navigate to the best trainers and they are the best to work for, with a few exceptions. (No, I cant name names)

To your point there sam, it comes down to the people doing the work. If you have good people who arent over extended, usually little goes wrong. if you have a bunch of dimwits and your paying them half rate and expect the world, there's a good shot something WILL go wrong, which is why the best people usually navigate to the best trainers and they are the best to work for, with a few exceptions. (No, I cant name names)

I started this damn thread then left it dangling ... sorry. The analogy about Mom&Pop versus Walmart is brilliant. Both can be successful given the right management for the size of the operation. Good help is not hard to find but hard to keep (in my experience). Folks in the horse business seem to have very short attention spans. 4-days (time of entry to race), week-to-week (race to race) and per meet (where am I going next to work/race).